PDA

View Full Version : Does size really matter?


everlite
09-30-2006, 04:39 AM
Hey,

Just wondering, or more so wanting to confirm, when creating mattes what size do people work to with respect to the final output size? do you work to the actual film size or create at high res then down res to final output when needed?

Cheers - Dave.

StoskiDigital
10-02-2006, 12:41 AM
Usually when working on film our output is around 2048 pixels wide (2K). Many of us like to paint at double that (4000 wide or 4k). This allows you to paint and scribble-in details that look more real when they are reduced to 2K.

I go into more detail on film resolutions, comparing different formats and working in the industry on my Gnomon DVD: "Matte Painting Production Techniques" if you're interested.

everlite
10-02-2006, 12:57 AM
Cheers mate, that's confirmed what i thought.

I'm really looking forward to your DVD, a big niche in the market i think. A little upset that it was pushed back a week http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon11.gif but hey it happens i guess.

Keep up the good work, nice to see you in the forum.

- Dave http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

hentsteph
10-04-2006, 12:56 AM
Usually when working on film our output is around 2048 pixels wide (2K). Many of us like to paint at double that (4000 wide or 4k). This allows you to paint and scribble-in details that look more real when they are reduced to 2K.

What DPI resolution do you use?

Thanks

StoskiDigital
10-04-2006, 03:59 AM
72 dpi is typical

Xdreamer79
10-04-2006, 09:28 AM
But for prints doesn't work 4k at 72dpi or?

azynkron
10-05-2006, 01:27 PM
But for prints doesn't work 4k at 72dpi or?

No.

Usually the lowest dpi is 120 when you print. Depends on the job.
That is, a large print needs higher dpi and so on.
From what I can recall, 200 dpi is usually required for B/W but
you need a slighty higher for 4/4, from 240 up to 300.

Also remember that you usually need to work with CMYK. :)

All but the CMYK is highly depending on the output size, type of
job and so on, so it's hard to say "right and wrong".

stylEmon
10-05-2006, 11:18 PM
dont mean to nit-pic, but dpi refers to print resolution; how many Dots Per Inch your printer can create. For most applications, 600 or less will do just fine.

PPI, or Pixels per Inch, refers to the screen resolution you are working with. So if creating for TV/film/web, your final ouput is 72 ppi.

For print, there is no reason to go beyond 300 (in most cases).

everlite
10-10-2006, 01:37 AM
ppi, aaah interesting.

150-200dpi - newspaper print

250-300dpi - gloss magazine etc

what use would you have to go higher? mmm not sure?

StoskiDigital
10-10-2006, 03:54 AM
Are you creating a matte painting for film? If you're creating an environment painting just for print, technically it's not a matte painting. Matte Painting implies that there is some use for motion graphics like in a film or tv show. Just for your info, even when film matte paintings are printed in magazines, usually the available resolution is still only approx 2000 pixels wide (usually from the final composited shot).

If you're a beginner matte artist not yet in the industry and you're creating nice portfolio prints of matte painting-like imagery for your portfolio, don't kill yourself in trying to work at a higher res than you would for film. I personally feel part of becoming a successful matte artist is to learn how to use the 2k format to your advantage and create the illusion of photo-realism for within those constraints. Painting a photo-real and successful 4k painting to be reduced down to 2k will keep most people occupied for a while, no need to make things harder on yourself if you're trying to get into the industry.

Hope this helps'.

everlite
10-10-2006, 08:24 AM
Yep that confirms what i thought, i'm no professional but it's for film, I've started taking a video camera into town and picking out interesting scenes to play with, hey we all start somewhere ;-)

One thing that did have me wondering, what if your provided a still from the film itself at 720 res, would you upsize this and work with what you have or try to get high res photography and down size later?

Cheers mate, only a week left to wait for the DVDs, can't wait :thumbsup:

Catch ya later - Dave.

azynkron
10-10-2006, 09:08 AM
ppi, aaah interesting.

150-200dpi - newspaper print

250-300dpi - gloss magazine etc

what use would you have to go higher? mmm not sure?

Think really large prints like 2m+ posters. That's one time when I think
that you might need to go higher than 300dpi.

stylEmon
10-10-2006, 04:26 PM
Think really large prints like 2m+ posters. That's one time when I think
that you might need to go higher than 300dpi.

When I worked at the news station, they used 300ppi for thier billboards .

Kutkin
10-10-2006, 08:32 PM
300dpi for billboards? 2m?
300 dots per inch, it seems like a lot of dots for 2 metres.
I thought, that for photos or something like that, that you watch very closely 300dpi is used and for big billboards seen from distance less than 300dpi is used. It just seems logical.

I took a look at some sites printing billboards and they say it.

The bigger is the distance you watch the print from, the smaller is dpi number.

Billboards even under 50 dpi...

stylEmon
10-10-2006, 11:53 PM
the printer may use 50 DPI,
but the document that the graphic was created on, is 300 PPI,

Thats just the way I've seen it done professionally

If you look at the topic statement, you can see why this confusion between DPI and PPI happens. The Thread starter is refereing to PPI, but says DPI. He wants to know what screen res to make his paintings on.

Most people (and some software packages) throw the term DPI around when talking about screen res. So its often refered to in the wrong context.

Also, I agree. Printing for smaller photos would require a higher DPI, opposed to something printed on a large scale, viewed from afar.

everlite
10-11-2006, 12:14 AM
Hey guys, well this one took a twist out the yellow brick road ;-)

I don't think i ever mention dpi originally. I work in a design agency and work with print day to day, typically large format print as with magazines and pretty much all other print uses 300dpi, it's still refering to per inch regardless of size, so there's never really any reason to go higher.

How much do you really need to get into that one little inch? :)

As it gets higher you start creating work at half scale and quarter scale for billboards exhibition stands etc ...

Cheers - Dave.

stylEmon
10-11-2006, 11:16 PM
typically large format print as with magazines and pretty much all other print uses 300dpi,

This is where the confusion is. Mags and large print use 60-150 DPI. Meaning, the PRINTER prints out 60-150 Dots Per Inch on the page. The fact is, most standard printers will print out 600 Dots Per Inch (DPI). High quality printers are capable of about double.

While the document (photoshop, quark, corel) has a screen resolution of 300 PPI, maximum. This is the number of pixels your COMPUTER/TV uses to make up one inch of color.

I know this is a little off the path from the original statement, but people keep saying DPI when refering to the document size on in Photoshop. Just trying to make the point that they are two differnt things. DPI = Printer ................PPI = monitor

everlite
10-12-2006, 12:41 AM
No i don't mind, its intersting to learn new things :thumbsup:

So you're saying that when i take an image into photoshop, covert to cmyk and save for print as a 300 dpi tiff/eps this is isn't really 300 dpi? it doesn't output the image as 300 dots per inch when it hits the printers?

Strange, i've worked for two newpapers and they always requested images at 150 - 200 dpi and now that i work elsewhere sending various work to commercial printers for magazine and large format print they always request files in 300 dpi?

So is this mis-understood?

azynkron
10-12-2006, 11:11 AM
No i don't mind, its intersting to learn new things :thumbsup:

So you're saying that when i take an image into photoshop, covert to cmyk and save for print as a 300 dpi tiff/eps this is isn't really 300 dpi? it doesn't output the image as 300 dots per inch when it hits the printers?

Strange, i've worked for two newpapers and they always requested images at 150 - 200 dpi and now that i work elsewhere sending various work to commercial printers for magazine and large format print they always request files in 300 dpi?

So is this mis-understood?

Yes it is. It's saved with 300 dpi. But if it's printed in 300 dpi or not is selected in the print job / rip. I remember from the printing company I worked for that they wanted an over head on the dpi before they ripped the job to avoid any problems.

stylEmon
10-12-2006, 04:50 PM
No i don't mind, its intersting to learn new things :thumbsup:

So you're saying that when i take an image into photoshop, covert to cmyk and save for print as a 300 dpi tiff/eps this is isn't really 300 dpi? it doesn't output the image as 300 dots per inch when it hits the printers?

Strange, i've worked for two newpapers and they always requested images at 150 - 200 dpi and now that i work elsewhere sending various work to commercial printers for magazine and large format print they always request files in 300 dpi?

So is this mis-understood?

This is a misunderstanding. What they are talking about is PPI. thats how many pixels per inch they want. at 150 DPI, the print would be bad quality up clsoe. More like stipling (magazines).

Your photoshop image does not tell the printer to print at 300 DPI. The print settings determine this. Most of the time, the user doesnt enter a numeric value for the DPI, but rather a setting such as standard paper, matte paper, photo glossy. The printer then uses it's pre-determined settings for each type of paper.

A designer/printer will rarely have to set DPI.

Just to drive the point home, in PS, go to Image > Image Size > Resolution. What are your ONLY two options for resolution? Pixels/Inch and Pixels/cm. There is NO Dots/inch(cm). Like I said before, some programs even have this mislabeled.

Expiriment: Take a gradient circle in PS. Put the settings at 300 PPI, Print.
Now lower the settings to 10 PPI. Print. See the difference in Pixels Per Inch?

If you have access to different types of paper, take your gradient ball at 300 PPI, and print on Photo/Matte paper, with the respective settings. Now take your 300 PPI ball and print on the lowest quaulity paper you can find, with the lowest possible settings you can conjure up in PS.

Compare

everlite
10-12-2006, 07:48 PM
Yes i'm beginning to see what you mean now, i'm always open to learning new things so i'll give that a try tomorrow at work.

So what should i see when doing this little test?

stylEmon
10-12-2006, 09:16 PM
most other designers I work with/know have a hard time with this concept. DPI has kinda become shorthand for screen res. So it been difficult to try to explain, and most of them still say DPI when they mean PPI.

This being a CG forum, I thought would be a great place to share what I've learned.


That little experiment should give you a great idea of the differences between the two.

The low PPI image will be made up of a few large squares. It will print out looking exactly how you see it on the screen.

The low DPI image will have a low number of small dots. It will be a very dull, faded print compared to what you see on the screen.

The high DPI and high PPI print will look fine.

thundering1
10-29-2006, 02:36 AM
Expiriment: Take a gradient circle in PS. Put the settings at 300 PPI, Print.
Now lower the settings to 10 PPI. Print. See the difference in Pixels Per Inch?

While keeping the "physical" height and width the same - 10CM (or inches) for example.

I realize this is keeping the topic of the thread a little OT but one thing to realize is that ppi/dpi is the 3rd part of a 3 part equation, and it's the one that means the LEAST when you are not altering your pixel count.

A 2000x2000 pixel file is the exact same whether it's assigned 10ppi or 600ppi - it's still 2000x2000 pixels. The ppi/dpi doesn't mean squat until it goes to print - and this equation is ONLY relevant to printing - not displaying on a television, going to film, or web presentation (when assigning it 72ppi is just fine - you've gotta assign it SOMETHING - might as well be the web standard).

Divide your height/width pixel count by the requested DPI from the printer and you will have the maximum size they can print it in its current form.

While most printers "request" 300dpi images, they usually only actually PRINT 150 lines per inch - the reason they request double that information is for quality assurance.

Someone asked why would someone request 600dpi images? A friend who draws for comics told me he has to submit 11x14 inch @ 600ppi files - can't for the life of me figure out WHY since it's going to be on newspaper (albeit HIGHER general QUALITY, but newspaper nonetheless)!
My 2 cents-
-Lew ;-)

azynkron
10-30-2006, 08:29 AM
Someone asked why would someone request 600dpi images? A friend who draws for comics told me he has to submit 11x14 inch @ 600ppi files - can't for the life of me figure out WHY since it's going to be on newspaper (albeit HIGHER general QUALITY, but newspaper nonetheless)!
My 2 cents-
-Lew ;-)

The only thing I can think of is that their rip-machines/software somehow demands it to be able to keep the quality. But, yes, it sounds like a bit of overkill. :)

Stream13
11-02-2006, 09:23 PM
Hey...

I'm going back a bit to the original question...I'm just starting with DMP & digital painting in general. If I'm looking to create Matte-like images for my portfolio, I understand using the 4000 or 2000 pixel size for width, but what would I use for a typical height?

And a slightly off topic question. When painting, do you prefer to use a mouse or do most of you use wacom tablets? I'm finding it hard to get used to painting with a mouse compaired to a physical brush.

Sorry for the completely inane questions...

Thanks :)

Brooke

StoskiDigital
11-03-2006, 06:19 AM
Brooke, the aspect ratio of the matte painting will vary depending on the output of the film (1.85 or 2.35 is common). This is 1.85 units wide and 1 unit tall. Often times film frames prior to cropping them is 2048 pixels wide and 1556 pixels tall, depending on the film you'll have to supply the a cropped version of the painting or final comp. If you're creating paintings for your own reel, just pick 1.85 or 2.35, whichever you feel compliments your work best.

Every artist I work with uses a drawing tablet like a Wacom.

I see you're from Calgary. I'm originally from Edmonton. Do you know many people in that area interested in Matte Painting or Visual Effects?

Stream13
11-03-2006, 05:22 PM
Chris,

I didn’t know you came from Edmonton! City of “Champions” (or mushrooms in French *wink*) It’s nice to see a fellow Albertan on the board. Anything you miss about living in Alberta? Need some real Canadian Maple Syrup sent your way? :)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I feel a bit out of my league when it comes to digital painting. I’ll definitely stick to either of those two ratios.


I’m currently in the process of redoing my portfolio. About 5 years ago (Dec 2001) I graduated from a digital animation course through a private school located here in Calgary called AMTC. I specialized in environmental modelling which tied in nicely with my previous education from SAIT as an Architectural Tech.

I didn’t send my portfolio out to anyone as three of my classmates and I attempted to get an animation studio up and running here. I won’t say it was a mistake, since I learned some interesting things about business, but I regret never taking the chance to get my work out to any of the studio down in the States. Perhaps it was my age as well; I don’t think I was quite ready to leave Calgary. Either way, Thumbprint Productions tanked :). Since then I’ve been working in urban planning as a tech. (Nothing says fun like AutoCAD!)

As for knowing anyone in the area interested in Matte painting & Visual Effects…I did a short stint at a studio here which was once called AurenyA, now New Machine. I worked as an environmental modeller on a children’s Christmas special called “Elfkins First Christmas”. While I was working there I got to meet a few interesting people, but I didn’t keep in touch with them or the company while I was trying to get things up and going with Thumbprint.

The most successful person I briefly knew at AurenyA was a fellow named Eric Tang who’s now working at Weta Digital and a couple of others almost made it to Blue Sky, but had problems with immigration. Otherwise I know a few people here and there from my graduating class and classes after; they’re mostly interested in animation or gaming. Calgary is still on its oil kick and not a huge place for animation etc.

Anyways…if I haven’t bored you to death with my life story yet…I decided that a fresh portfolio would be best. This would include colour digital concepts and a matte painting or two. One of which would be used in my modelled environment.

I’m hoping to increase my painting skills to help out with the textures I’m planning for my environment. I think I’ve decided to completely go digital and use no photos for textures. Along with life drawing, I’m also working on a few Maquettes for my reel and I’m hoping to head down to Siggraph in August to hand it out. If I can’t make Siggraph due to cost then I’ll just mail it out to the various studios and cross my fingers.

I got a bit sidetracked along the way, but I’m determined to get back on track. Hopefully, if you have the time, once I start getting some WIPs posted you’ll have a chance to comment. No obligation though.


If by a miracle and talent one manages to get an interview at a minor or major studio, how willing are they to get artists up to speed with industry standards? Not necessarily with their animation or modelling skills, but more of knowing the correct film ratios, or what works best for scene setup etc. Procedures etc that might seem obvious to the people currently working in film, but may not be for a person who doesn’t have experience. (Hopefully that makes sense)



Enough about me now! How are things going for you at ILM? What’s your background (schooling etc)? How’d you get into matte painting? How do you like living in the states? Did you have problems getting the right documents etc to work down there?


Congratulations btw on your DVD set with Gnomon, I’ll have to pick them up sometime soon. It looks like there’s been a lot of interest on this board alone by people wanting them, which is great!


Now I’m serious…If you have a hankering for Real Canadian Maple Syrup or something else, just let me know and I’ll send it your way ;)


Have a great day Chris!

Brooke

Rockhoppermedia
11-05-2006, 09:29 AM
Brooke couldnt help but miss your reply. I see you are in Calgary, I stayed at a place called Cochrane its on the way to Banff. Incredible coffee shop in the town. Anyway is the Irish Bar still open? Because it had a strange paranormal effect on me as I entered every thing goes woosy and I wake up someplace else. My biggest regret is not staying longer in Canada, everybody made me feel very welcome. Ended up on stage with a band called Adams Rib (are they still going?). If you ever any where mear Banff could you do me a favour and locate the British Pub and get a quick shot for me as that would settle a argument with my friends.


You are in a beatiful part of the world and some paintings of it would be awesome.


Any way going of tangent to an earlier post. As a photographer we work at 300dpi print out at 1440 dpi. Gamut in CMYK and RGB are varied and as such we have to check that printable gamut is more important than dpi management. For newspaper we send out at 72dpi trying to keep file size down below 1mb. rule of thumb for magazine was longest size 2000 pixels. We also for magazines and books keep the image loose so editors have the oppurtunity to bleed out to spine for the dust cover.

Currently one of my paintings longest size is 7000 pixels so i can reduce down. You may think me nuts but I am zooming out from the centre of the image is this the right strategy?

Answers on postcard to .......


Rich

Stream13
11-07-2006, 03:46 PM
Hey Rich!

I'm glad you enjoyed your stay out here. The Cochrane/Banff area is very beautiful. I only get a chance to drive out there about once or twice a year. Doesn't always seem like the locals don't take advantage of what's right out their backyard?

I haven't had the pleasure of hearing Adams Rib before, but a quick check online showed that they're still around (minus one player). They seem to have originated out in Toronto, ONT and I found their website www.adamsrib.ca (http://www.adamsrib.ca/). The site won't be up until sometime this month though.

Next time I'm heading out to Cochrane/Banff I'll stop by and try to grab you a photo of the British Pub (Do you remember what it was called?)

Cheers!

Brooke

Rockhoppermedia
11-07-2006, 04:30 PM
The prince ? i think it is upstairs it is on the main street I have to shoot will talk later as my boss has just come asking for images.....ahh the demands of normal work. Thank you for replying


See Ya

Rich.

Rockhoppermedia
11-07-2006, 05:05 PM
Hello back on, just about to leave for the bus home and the boss ran in and in a flap asked for shots to telegraph. Had to find some stock shots and send them of to press. Yes Banff is fantastic for photography would love to go there in the winter and shoot. Calgary was fantastic for photography especially the winter olympic runs with out snow on. I wished i had done more shots as these make fantastic refernce for futuristic shapes.



Thank you for replying just done some more shots for myself in london just follow this link

http://www.photoboxgallery.com/rockhopper

Rich

shkumbinferizi
11-08-2006, 02:22 PM
I would like to ask any of u guys here that is it possible somehow to paint over an animation frames or something, lets say Ive got a max scene and maybe Im not 100% satisfied with detail and realism or with textures, is it possible to somehow draw over animation or export the camera in any program or something.
Ive heard for some program called "Icarus" or something, though Im pretty new to this stuff so any info would be welcome!
Cheers

stylEmon
11-16-2006, 05:27 PM
... means the LEAST when you are not altering your pixel count.

A 2000x2000 pixel file is the exact same whether it's assigned 10ppi or 600ppi - it's still 2000x2000 pixels. The ppi/dpi doesn't mean squat until it goes to print - and this equation is ONLY relevant to printing - not displaying on a television, going to film, or web presentation (when assigning it 72ppi is just fine - you've gotta assign it SOMETHING - might as well be the web standard).

this is EXACTLY where everyone gets confused. If you alter your pixel count (PPI), you will still have 10cmX10cm, but there will be LESS pixles in EVERY INCH of your 10cmX10cm board!

The PPI corelates with the quality of your ARTWORK.

The DPI corelates ONLY With the quality of your PRINT.

try the experiment and you'll start to see the difference in PPI and DPI.

Your comp screen displays 72 PPI, thats why 72 ppi is the standard web res, its the most efficient. Its NOT some made up number just because...

stylEmon
11-16-2006, 05:29 PM
I would like to ask any of u guys here that is it possible somehow to paint over an animation frames or something, lets say Ive got a max scene and maybe Im not 100% satisfied with detail and realism or with textures, is it possible to somehow draw over animation or export the camera in any program or something.
Ive heard for some program called "Icarus" or something, though Im pretty new to this stuff so any info would be welcome!
Cheers

it'll be tough, but you can either learn to camera track, or learn to rotoscope.:shrug:

CGTalk Moderation
11-16-2006, 05:29 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.